tv [untitled] July 21, 2012 11:00pm-11:30pm PDT
today is wednesday, july 18, 2012. this is a meeting of the abatement appeals board. i want to remind everyone to turn up their electronic devices. the first item on the agenda is roll call. [roll call] we have a quorum. the next item is item b, the oath. will all parties giving testimony today please raise your best and -- raise your right hand. you may be seated. each appellant and staff has seven minutes to present their
report and then there is public comments. each side is allowed three minutes for rebuttal. the next item is item c approval of minutes. is there a motion? second? all in favor? >> aye. >> is there any public comment on the minutes? the minutes are approved. >> please note reverend mcrae has just joined us. >> the next item is item d, continued appeals, orders of abatement. case no. 6752, 1743 12th
avenue. owner of record and appellant alla dubrovsky. attorney for the owner, heather wolnick. action requested by appellate: to reverse the order of abatement. >> good morning. i am the attorney for the owner of the property. i am here to ask for a continuance of six months. this matter is being handled through the courts. we have gone through arbitration. there has been an interim order issued by the judge gunn monday. that would require us to go back to the judge for refinement on the details of the award.
that will probably also require us to submit new plans, which we anticipate will take several months. we think, realistically speaking, a six-month continuance would allow our client to hopefully complete the project. but it is in the works. we are getting closer to resolution. >> i would like to hear if staff has any objections to that. >> we came this morning with the intention of not recommending any continuances, but having heard this, we would concur with that. >> i just want to clarify there are no life safety hazards, have the department clarify that. >> so the order from the court
is about who is responsible for doing the work? could you explain to me what the order currently is? >> it is much more complicated than that. in a nutshell, the court has ordered that there be a wall built between the two properties. as to what kind of wall, the court order specifies that as well, but in addition, there will be a need to survey the properties to determine what kind of wall will go there, depending on the typography. we need to assess the elevation on both sides of the property. >> but there will be a wall. your client will be doing it, i understand. >> my client has agreed to
build a wall two years ago. however, the story is very long and i do not want to burden you, but ultimately there was a dispute between the parties as to what kind of drainage would have to happen. since then, several plants have been submitted to the city. we have plans approved, went back to arbitration, and now they have given a final award. before we had a settlement agreement. now we have an arbitrator's award. but the arbitrator's award contemplates going back to him for final plans, refining the plan. in conjunction with that, we are going to need to have some homework done, mainly service of both properties, and submit new plans reflecting the award. we believe that will take some
time. then if you at the time for construction, that is why we are asking for a six-month continuance. >> one other question. did the court determine the property line that both parties agreed to? >> that issue is not a problem because of the settlement agreement the parties had reached in august 2010. at that time, my client had undertaken the responsibility of building this wall. that is not an issue. >> has the court suggested to
you it would take an additional six months or are you just requesting that? >> we are requesting that. the court has not been involved in these proceedings. they are just aware that these proceedings are going on. however, they have not given any opinion, one way or the other. has the court suggested to you it would take an additional six months or are you just requesting that? >> my concern is that in six months it would be december, right before the rainy season. that and that is a concern of my client. that is why earlier i said hopefully. there are a lot of things that have to come into play. that would be the goal. we tried to give you a best estimate. i do not want to make any misrepresentations here, because some things are outside of my clients control. we anticipate that would give us enough time to get things done. >> this. >> this is not a question, more of a discussion. should i do that now? i wonder if we could uphold the
order to uphold the order and then hold the action in abeyance for six months. >> is that possible? >> the concern i have is we need to hear from the department. if the appellant would like to weigh-in if it is a safety hazard. >> should we hear from the other neighboring parties first? >> sure. >> good morning. i represent james wong, the owner of the lower line property affected by all of this. as the board may know, we also preferencehave an abatement or. we did not file, to submit the order to uphold the an appeal because we thought it would all sort out and felt that the assessments were based on the reality and the existence of a perceived nuisance and danger. we could not dispute that both sides had that, so we got to the point where we did not appeal, with all due respect to ms. dubrovsky's right to appeal under the rule. that being said, i concur with
what tour-sarkissian has presented. we do have from a judge and appointed arbitrator, interim arbitration award which calls for the parties to meet and confer, but the award itself has not fairly fixed parameters, and we are dealing with color, kind, location, some of the amenities, how to implement this interim award into a final award. the award is binding, so we are not going to be appealing it. i do not think the dubrovsky parties will appeal because i do not think it is appealable.
i think there is enough in there, in my experience. six months seemed like an inordinate amount of time, having come before you three times, but the process started, as your records reflect, in about 2007, with an abatement notice. that was continued with the department's good offices to allow for mediation which formed an arbitration.
i have been practicing law for 40 years and this is the most curious time line i have had without having an actual trial, appellant, supreme court decision. so to avoid all of that, i guess we have all the dignity but none of the glory. six months seems long, but given we have 30 days to meet and confer, the award came out monday. we are going to go to our respective people, architects, engineers, have them read it. there have been significant changes in topography over the last few years that need to be looked at, in terms of plans showing grades in elevations, showing whether they are approved or not, as the case may need to be redone, not withstanding what goes on top of it, just the underlying foundations. the may need to be adjusted. we want to get it right. with that in mind, probably 30 days out of getting back to the arbitrator. certainly, i would not think that more than 45 days we would be back.
then there will be, on ms. dubrovsky's side, tweaking, adding, subtracting plans, getting them through the city, bidding on them, and then building. i think everyone here is much more experienced on a regular basis of how things do and do not go down when you have bits. it is true, we will be at the far end of the weather, but we hope we can get it all done. if we cannot, we will come back to you on hands and knees, it will be the weather. thank you. >> i think you basically voiced our sentiments, too. at this point, we think we can do this in six months.
i would prefer to come back in six months. we are working together, as you can see. it is not like it is going to go back into the courts at this point. just to refine and get this done. the intent is to get this done. it is in both parties interest to get this wall don. >> great. could we hear from staff? -- wall done. >> would it be appropriate if you grant the six-month continuance, to report to you in writing at the next scheduled meeting so that you would at least know the arbitration decision was made by the judge? i would concur with the six months because, as you mentioned earlier, it has been tabled in number of times.
we received one continuance, and maybe we will get two more continuances. i hope this is the last time. >> with regard to the life safety, any concerns there? >> the two affected parties are before you and they are in agreement, taking on any concerns there. that gives us some comfort level. >> we are willing to give you a progress report on what is going on at the arbitration level, in terms of plans and executions, if that would convince you to give us that
time. we are shooting for six months, and we are hoping to achieve that. so we are asking for one last continue as of this matter. >> i would like to give a continuance. i think everybody pretty much agrees, but commissioner walker expressed something below bit different. i did not hear you make a motion. did you want to? >> i would tend not to do a continuance, coupled the order, hold it in abeyance -- to uphold the order, hold it in advance and then maybe have a check-in. let me ask the city attorney, if we uphold the order with the six months old, can we add to that, if we need, within that six months' time? if there is an emergency delay
or something? >> i am not sure. i would have to check. you would then modify the order of abatement to allow the six months to complete the work, is that when you are saying? >> yes. >> if it came to you within six months, the question would be then, could you re-modify it? i think you can but i'm not positive. i would want to take some time to get that answer. >> given the fact that the goal is to do this wall, i would say a six month continuance for us to come back -- neither the wong's or my intentions client is to have the wall not being done. it is in the intention of both parties. you have to understand we are doing this as fast as possible. our hands are tied because of the process, arbitration, because of what is going on there.
i would plead that we did the six months continuance. we would give you a progress reports in the meanwhile so you know where we are going with this, and then come back. >> i might give maybe a two months continuance. maybe then we would have more information in order to actually make a final decision. right now, it feels like there is not a final agreement with the arbitrator's, but i would like to see something more concrete sooner than six months. >> if that is your inclination, realistically speaking, it will take us about a month and a half to get back in front of the arbitrator. i would foresee that it would take another month for as to come up with new plans. >> so three months? >> that would be much more for
us to figure out, in terms of time lines. >> commissioner walker, what is going on here, i believe this is a genuine effort to resolve this year whether they come back in three months or six months -- to me, by giving you the six months, that is it. we resolution on that. that is my position, but i will lean towards the rest of the commission. i am quite okay with the six months, provided that at six months is used to resolve what we discussed here this morning in all aspects. obviously, we are concerned that this gets done before the rainy season. it would be nice to see this done by the end of the year. >> certainly. the goal was to have it done two years ago. certainly, that would be our primary goal, to get this done as soon as possible, before the
end of the year. commissioner lee pointed out an issue, it is not in our powers. there are other parameters in play here. we do not want to have to say, if it takes six months and one week -- we do not want to have further proceedings here. i do not mind giving progress reports and coming in and giving you more of an idea as to what is happening at our local, but i do not want anything drastic to happen at this point when we are right in the middle of trying to finalize the judgment. >> how about we continue this for a maximum of up to six months, but we hear it earlier, as soon as a resolution is achieved with the arbitrator. >> that is fine. >> then our department should get an update on how to
arbitration is going so that we can schedule it earlier. can we do that? >> we have already continued it three times. i want to say that i think there is a life safety issue. you may well take it on, which it sounds like you have, but nonetheless, i think we need to really put down, like, that we need this resolved. i would favor a shorter continuance so we get these people before us with the final proposal. that is why i was suggesting three months. if you wanted done by six months, that is the way it will have to play, in my opinion. i will not support six months, but i would a three-month continuance. >> can we make a motion to
extend for a maximum up to six months but to hear it item earlier what the arbitrator rules? >> you would continue for three months, and then when they appear in three months -- ok, i'm sorry. i have lost track of where we are them. >> continue for a maximum of six months. if the arbitrator finishes his -- makes a ruling, we hear it as soon as that ruling is completed. >> under the building code, you can grant continuances. those are not to exceed 60 days. you have had the practice -- for example, the last one was for 90 days. i am just pointing out what the building code says. one possibility that i see is
that you give a continuance for 60 days, they appear in 60 days, state their progress, and at that point, you could a couple of the order of abatement, held in abeyance, until december. i think that would satisfy the various problems. >> i would like to make that motion. continue for 60 days, you come back to report, and then we make the decision. >> shall we vote on it? >> public comment? is there any public comment on this item? is there any further discussion from commissioners? ok. roll call vote on the motion to
continue the case for 60 days. [roll call] the motion carries unanimously. item e, new appeals, case #6760, 1654 haight street, owner of record and appellant ronald rowe mine. agent for the appellant, leo mcfadden. action requested by the appellant, appellant has requested additional time to complete the work. >> good morning. you have a continuance request before you.
we will concur with every decide. -- whatever you decide. >> and there are no life safety issues? >> no, not that we are aware of. >> ok, move to continue. >> public comment? >> would anyone like to speak to this item? >> there is no public comment on this item. roll call vote. >> can i just clarify the amount of time for the continuance? 30 days? ok. i just did not hear. sorry. >> the motion is to continue the item, 1654 haight street, for 60 days. [roll call]
the motion carries unanimously. item number two, case #6761, 1299 arguello blvd. owner of record and appellant sam hom. architect for the appellant, van t. ly and associates. action required by appellant, the appellant is requesting more time to have architect of the required permits. >> good morning, members of the board. chief housing inspector. 1299 arguello blvd. is a five- unit building with a plea or guest rooms on three floors of occupancy. at issue is a notice of violation that was issued in january 2011 regarding a set of stairs that is a second means of
egress for one of the units. as you can see from the staff report, we have worked with this particular property owner and we did not schedule it for the directors hearing until the following march, march 2012. at that point in time, the structure was significantly deteriorated and have a significant done over to it with new materials without any bread -- building permit. indeed, a building permit was not filed until july 3 of this year. 18 months after the notice of violation was issued we have a building permit filed not yet issued, going through the process. we're happy to see that, but the property owner is here appealing the order of abatement issuance from the hearing officer, wanting more time. from staff's standpoint, we did not have a choice but to send this to the directors hearing and it asked for an order.
i do not think there was much option on the part of the hearing officer because at march -- in march, we did not have a building permit. you can see from the photographs in your staff report, they are unsafe. there are no guardrails, somebody can fall through. you can see there are some new pressure-treated materials on the stairway. the question is how long? we are sympathetic with the economy and what property owners have to face. the question for us is how long and what message does this decision sent to other cases i have with similar situations? this is unique in that they are only dealing with a second means of egress to only one unit, but while we are sympathetic, i have to ask you to uphold the hearing officer, but perhaps the property owner, mr. hom, maybe he has otr